Judgment A. N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18th July, 1991 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, rohtas at Sasaram In Sessions Trial No.547 of 1985 whereby the learned additional Sessions Judge has convicted all the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 148 and 302, I, P, C. and 27 of the Arms Act and has sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, rigorous imprisonment for five years and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively for the offence under the aforesaid sections, Accused-appellant Ram Swamp Dushad and Jag Mohan Dusadb of Criminal appeal No.311 of 1991 have been further convicted for the charge under section 302, I. P. C. and all the seven accused-appellants of Criminal appeal No.312/91 have been farther convicted for the charge under section 302/149, I. P. C. and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered by the learned Additional Sessions judge to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the fardbeyan (Ext.2)of the informant, is that on 9-12-1984 at about 4.30 P. M. while informant rajeshwar Singh (P. W.10), his brothers Anandi Singh (P. W.11), Umesh singh and maternal brother Surendra Singh (P. W.9) were preparlag the paddy crop in their Khalihan at village Mishripur and Surendra Singh (deceased) son of Kailash Singh was (sic) nearby Khalihan and Shanker Sah and some other persons were cutting Pawta (straw) in the neighbouring khalihan of Halkhori Singh, accused (1) Jagmohan Dusadh, (2) Ram swarup Dusadh, (3) Umesh Dusadh, alias Tikar Dusadh, (4) Naresh dasadh, (5)Dasrath Dusadh, (6)Jagat Dusadh, (7)Lalan Dusadh @ Sitaram (8) Shri Bhajan Dusadh (9) Radha Dusadh along with two to four unknown persons suddenly came their in the Khaliyan of the informant from village side The moment the accused and their companions arrived there, accused jagmohan Dusadh and Ram Swarup Dusadh who were armed with country made single and double barrel guns respectively, fired their guns on surendra Singh (decased) son of Kailash Singh as a result of which surendra Singh fell down there. Thereafter the accused persons went running to the Khalihan of the Informant Rajeshwar Singh (P. W.10 ). Thereafter the accused persons went running to the Khalihan of the Informant Rajeshwar Singh (P. W.10 ). Accused Umesh Dushad, Jagmohan Dushad and Radhe Dushad began to fire from their country made guns aiming on informant Rajeshwar Singh and others as a result of which informant Rajeshwar Singh and Surender singh son of Megha Singh were injured. Accused Jagat Dushad inflicted lathi blow on the head of the informant which caused bleeding injury and in that injured condition informant Rajeshwar Singh and Surendra Singh went running to the side of Puwal (straw), Thereafter the accused persons went to the Khalihan of Halkhori Singh and fired their guns as a result of which Shankar Sab, the ploughman of Halkhori Singh was injured. The accused persons thereafter went back to the village firing their guns. The villagers thereafter, took the injured persons to Sasaram Hospital by tractor Since Surendra Singh (deceased) son of Kailash Singh and surendra Singh (P. W.9) son of Megha Singh were badly injured, they, with the permission of the doctor of Sasaram Hospital, were taken to banaras (Varanasi) for treatment but Surendra Singh son of Kailash singh died. 3. As regard motive for the occurance in question it has been stated in the fardbeyan of the informant that there has been litigation between the informant and accused Jagmohan Dusadh with regard to the land and hence this occurance. 4. On getting O. D. Slip from Sasaram Hospital, S.1. Mundrika prasad Singh (P. W.15) of Sasaram Mufassil police station went to sasaram Hospital and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of informant Rajeshwar singh (P. W.10) on 9-12-1984 at 6-30 P. M. and on the basis thereof formal F. I. R. (Ext.1) was drawn up and Sasaram Mufassil P. S. case no.573 dated 9-12-1984 was registered against the accused persons after Investigation, the public submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellants and, on trial, they have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as mentioned above. 5. The defence case as it appears from the statements of the accused-appellants under Sec.313, Cr. P. C. and the evidence brought on record on their behalf is that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. The accused-appellants have brought on record F. I. R. (Ext. 5. The defence case as it appears from the statements of the accused-appellants under Sec.313, Cr. P. C. and the evidence brought on record on their behalf is that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. The accused-appellants have brought on record F. I. R. (Ext. B) of the counter case (Sasaram Mufassil P. S ease No.574/84 dated 9-12-1984) registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of accused-appellant sitaram alias Lalan Dusbad. The counter verson is to the effect that on 9-12-1984 at about 4 P. M. the younger son of Ganesh Dushad and some small boys of Koiri caste were querrelling at the Chhawar to the adjecent south of village Mishripur where there are Khalihans of several villagers. Seeing this accused-appellant Sitaram went there and asked Rajendra koiri, Raj Kishore Koiri, Anandi Koiri and Ramsagar Koiri, who were sitting there, to Intervene and separate the quarrelling boys whereupon rajeshwar Singh and Anand) Singh ordered for assaulting him and thereupon rajendra Singh fired one country made pistol on him as a result of which his left eye and head were hit by pellets and he fell down. Thereafter Ram Sagar Koiri inflicted lathi below on the waist at Sitaram and he become unconscious. Sitaram regained his consciousness in the hospital and hence he did not know what happened thereafter. 6. Now it has to be seen if the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellants are sustainable in law or not. 7. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused-appellants the prosecution has, in all, examined 16 witnesses out of whom P. W.1 premchand Singh and P. W.2 Nand Kishore Prasad are witnesses of formal nature and have been examined to prove the formal FIR (Ext.1) and fardbeyan (Ext.2 ). P. W.36 Ratan Ram is also a witness of formal nature and he has been examined simply to produce in court the material exhibit kept in Handi (earthen pot) as per order of the Officer Incharge of Sasaram mufassil police station. P. W.6 Raghubanshi Singh and P. W.7 Keshwar singh are witnesses to the seizure list (Ext.10) and bad proved their signatures (Ext.3 and 3/1) over the seizure lists. P. W.6 Raghubanshi Singh and P. W.7 Keshwar singh are witnesses to the seizure list (Ext.10) and bad proved their signatures (Ext.3 and 3/1) over the seizure lists. P. W.3 Jaggu Singh, P. W.4 lakshman Singh, P. W.5 Kameshwar Singh, P. W.8 Raghublr Singh, p. W.9 Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh, P. W.10 Rajeshwar Singh (informant) and P. W.11 Anandi Singh are eye witnesses to the occurrance. P. W.13 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh had examined injured P. W.9 surendra Singh son of Megha Singh, Shankar Sah and Rajeshwar Singh (informant) in Sardar Hospital Sasaram on 9-12-1984 in between 4-35 P. M. to 4-45 P. M. and had prepared injury reports (Ext.7 series) with regard to the injuries found on their person. P. W.14 is Dr. G. K. Agrawal of s. S. P. C. Hospital Kabirchaura, Varanasi. On 10-12-1984 at 3-30 P. M. he (P. W.14) had held postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh and bad prepared postmortem report (Ext.8 ). P. W.12 Ram Barayee Yadav is S. I. of Police and was posted at Kotwali police station of Varanasi at the relevant time. On getting information from Kabirchaura Hospital he along with two constables had gone to Kabirchaura Hospital and had prepared Panchnama (inquest report Ext.4) with regard to the dead body of deceased surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh. He (P. W.12) had also prepared a photo (Ext. S) of the deased showing therein the portion of the body where fire arm injury had been caused. He has proved the signature (Exts.3/4 and 3/5) of constables Nanhaku Yadav and Yugal Klshore Singh who had accompanied him, over the Panchnama. After preparation of inquest report P. W.12 had forwarded the dead body of deceased with the said constables for postmortem examination with a requisition (Ext.6) in this regard. P. W.15 Mundrika Prasad Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case who after investigation had submitted charge-sheet. 8. On behalf of the accused-appellants two witnesses have been examined. They are D. W.1 Dr. Rama Shanker Tiwary and D. W.2 dr. Devendra Nath Singh. They have been examined to say that as member of the board constituted for examination of accused-appellant Sitaram they had examined him on 27-4-1985 i. e. several months after the occurrence and had found the injuries as stated in their evidence. 9. P. W.14 Dr. They are D. W.1 Dr. Rama Shanker Tiwary and D. W.2 dr. Devendra Nath Singh. They have been examined to say that as member of the board constituted for examination of accused-appellant Sitaram they had examined him on 27-4-1985 i. e. several months after the occurrence and had found the injuries as stated in their evidence. 9. P. W.14 Dr. G. K. Agrawal of S. S. P. G. Hospital, Kabir chaura, Varanasi had held postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh on 10-12-1984 at 3 30 P M. and had prepared postmortem examination report dated 10-12-1984 (Ext.8 ). From the postmortem report as well as from the evidence of the said doctor (P. W.14) it would appear fhat he had found the following antemortem Injuries on the person of deceased Surendra Singh S/o Kailash singh : - (i) Multiple gun-shot wounds (entrance) in an area of 7 cm x 8 cm on the left side chest 3 cm below the left nipple and midline and 117 cm x above the left heel having two centrally located big wounds of size. (a) 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm x cavity deep. (b) 1.75 cm x 2.5 cm x cavity deep. Both the above wounds were at a distance of 1/2 cm apart. On opening chest wall i. e. after reflection 5th and 6th ribs were found fractured under neath the wounds. In the chest cavity in the heart multiple punctured wounds were found specially in the left ventricle. Two pellets were recovered from the heart. In the left lung lower part penetrating wounds were present and six pellets were recovered. Two pellets were recovered from anteriar chest wall tissue and one pellet was recovered from left pleural cavity. In total 11 pellets were recovered. (ii) Lacerated wound 2 cm X 1/2 cm x scalp deep on the left side head. 10. The doctor has opined that the cause of death was shock and heamorrhage as a result of fire arm injuries such as gun. The doctor has further opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. So this much is apparent that Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh died due to fire arm injuries found on his person by the doctor which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The doctor has further opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. So this much is apparent that Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh died due to fire arm injuries found on his person by the doctor which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In view of this it is also appaarent that it was a case of homicidal death. 11. It is the prosecution case that Surendra Singh son of Kailash singh and Surendra Singh son of Mehta Singh were badly injuried and hence they, with the permission of the doctor of Sasaram hospital, were taken to Varanasi for treatment but Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh died on way to hospital at Varanasi. In para 6 of his deposition P. W.9 surendra Singh son of Megha Singh has stated that the dead body of surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh had been taken to B. H. U. Hospital but he did not see if the dead body h,d been examined by the doctor or not. He (P. W.9) has further stated that he learnt from those who had taken the dead body to BHU Hospital that the dead body had been thrown into Ganges. In view of the above statements of P. W.9 it was contended on behalf of the appellants that is doubtful if the dead body on which postmortem examination was held was that of Surendra Singh son of kailash Singh. P. W.14 who had held postmortem examination on the dead body of Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh has stated that the dead body had been identified by two constables namely, Nanhaku Yadav and yugal Kishore Singh of Kotwali Police Station Varanasi. In view of this it was further contended that the said constables were not knowing deceased surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh from before and they were not competent to identify and in view of this it becomes doubtful if the dead body which was subjected to postmortem examination was the dead body of Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh. P. W.12 Ram Barai Yadav s. I. of police posted at Kotwali P. S. of Varanasi at the relevant time had prepared inquest report with regard to the dead body of Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh. P. W.12 Ram Barai Yadav s. I. of police posted at Kotwali P. S. of Varanasi at the relevant time had prepared inquest report with regard to the dead body of Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh. He has stated that he had forwarded the dead body of deceased Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh in sealed cover with requisition (Ext.6) to C. M. O. of B. H. U through two constables. The doctor (PW.14) who held postmortem examination has corroborated p. W.12 by stating that the dead body was received in sealed bundle of cloth which tallied and was correct and was identified by he two constables. The evidence of P. W.12 would also show that he prepared inquest report (Ext.4) regarding the dead body of Surendra Singh son of kailash Singh in presence of Punchas and Punchas consisted of Kailash singh, the father of deceased Surendra Singh, Anandi Singh Purnmashi singh the villagers of deceased Surendra Singh. Besides them there were two local Punchas. Ext.3/3 is the signature of Anandi Singh over the inquest report. It would also appear from the evidence of P. W.12 Ram barai Yadav that before sending the dead body of deceased Surendra singh son of Kailash Singh he had prepared a sketch photograph (Ext.5)of the deceased showing therein the portions of body of the deceased which had fire arm injury. The evidence of P. W.12 would further show that prior to sending the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination he affixed seal over the cloth in which the deady body was wapped and then forwarded the same for postmortem examination with the aforesaid two constables and requisition (Ext.6 ). As mentioned above the evidence of p. W.12 to this effect has been corroborated by the doctor (P. W.14) who had held postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased by stating that the dead body was received in seal bundle of cloths which tallied and was found correct. In view of the evidence of P. Ws.12 and 14 to the aforesaid effect, there appears no merit in the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. It would not be out of place to mention here that P. W.9 was admittedly admitted in hospital at kabirchaura and hence he could not have seen the postmortem examination nor could have seen the throwing of the dead body into Gangas. It would not be out of place to mention here that P. W.9 was admittedly admitted in hospital at kabirchaura and hence he could not have seen the postmortem examination nor could have seen the throwing of the dead body into Gangas. That being the position, the above statement of P. W.9 in para 6 of his deposition can hardly be interpreted to mean that the dead body of Surendra singh son of Kailash Singh bad been thrown into Gangas prior to postmortem examination and that the identification of the dead body which was subjected to postmortem examination by P. W.14 was doubtful. 12. P. W.13 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh is the doctor who had examine Surendra Singh son of Megna Singh on 9-12-1984 at 4.35 p. M. in Sasaram hospital and had prepared injury report (Ext.7) regarding the injuries found on his person, From the injury report (Ext.7) and the evidence of the doctor (P. W.13) it would appear that the doctor had found two punctured wounds on left thigh 1/4" in diameter with inverted margin, three punctured wounds on right thigh 1/4" in diameter with inverted margin and two punctured wounds on left leg 1/4" in diameter with inverted margin. The doctor has opined that the injuries had been caused by fire arm such as gun and are simple in nature. 13. On 9-12-1984 P. W.13 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh had also examined Shanker Sah at 4.40 P. M. and had prepared injury report (Ext.7/1) with regard to the injuries found on the person of Shanker Sah. From the injury report and the evidence of the doctor (P. W.13) it would appear that the following six injuries were found on the person of Shanker sah : (i) A punctured wound 1/4" In diameter on right ankle joint. (ii) A punctured wound 1/4" in diameter on right knee joint. (iii) A punctured wound on right upper thigh 1/4" in diameter. (iv) A punctured wound 1/4" in diameter on left upper thigh. (v) A punctured wound on left ankle joint 1/4" in diameter. (vi) A punctured wound on right buttock. The doctor has opined that the above injuries had been caused by fire arm such as gun and are simple in nature. (iv) A punctured wound 1/4" in diameter on left upper thigh. (v) A punctured wound on left ankle joint 1/4" in diameter. (vi) A punctured wound on right buttock. The doctor has opined that the above injuries had been caused by fire arm such as gun and are simple in nature. 14 On 9-12-1984 P. W.13 had also examined Rajeshwar Singh son of Gurucharan Singh at 4.45 P. M. in Sasaram hospital and had prepared injury report (Ext.7/2) with regard to the injuries found on the person of rajeshwar Singh. From the injury report and evidence of the doctor (P. W.13) it would appear that the doctor had found the following four injuries on the person of Rajeshwar Singh : (i) Lacerated wound on left thigh 1/2" x 1/4". (ii) Lacerated wound on right thigh 1/4"x 1/4". (iii) Lacerated wound on left arm 1/2"x 1/4". (iv) Lacerated wound on left knee joint 1/2" X 1/2". The doctor has opined that the above Injuries were simple in nature and had been caused by hard blunt substance such as pellets of the firm arm. 15. Now it has to be seen if the injuries found on the person of deceased Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh and that of Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh, Shanker Sah son of Hari Sah, Rajcshwar Singh son of Gurucharan Singh by the said two doctors (P. Ws.14 and 10) had been caused in the alleged occurrence at the place and In the manner alleged by the prosecution. 16. It is not disputed that accused-appellant Sitaram had instituted counter case regarding the same occurrence. Moreover, this fact is apparent from Ext.8 which is the FIR of the counter case lodged by accused Sitaram. The time of occurrence alleged in the counter case Is at about 4.00 P. M, The time of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is about 4.30 P. M. but the evidence on record as led by the prosecution shows that the occurrence took place at about 4.00 P. M. to 4.30 P. M. From the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of informant Rajeshwar Singh, it would appear that the place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is khalihans of Halkhori Singh and Rajeshwar Singh to the south of village mishripur. From Ext. From Ext. B it would appear that the P. O. of the counter case is Chhawar to the south of village Mishripur where there are khalihans of several villagers. It would appear from the evidence of the i. O. Mundrika Prasad Singh (P. W.15) that the Khalihan of Halkhori singh is on the western side of the Chhawar and the Khalihan of Rajesbwar singh is on the eastern side of Chhawar and the distance between their khalihans is 85 ft. So the place of occurrence as alleged in the counter case is also near about the place as alleged by the prosecution but is not the same as alleged by the prosecution. 17. As mentioned earlier P. Ws.3 Jaggu Singh, P. Ws.4 Lakshman singh, P. W.5 Kameshwar Singh, P. W.8 Raghubir Singh P W 9 surendra Singh s/o Megha Singh, P W.10 Rajeshwar Singh (informant)and P. W.11 Anandi Singh are witnesses to the occurrence. First of all i would like to refer to the evidence of informant Rajeshwar Singh (P. W.10) He has stated that at about 4. P. M. to 4:30 P. M. while he, bis brother Anandi Singh (P W.11), Umesh Singh (not examined)and maternal brother Surendra Singh (P. W 9) were in his Khalihan 18 to 20 persons, including all the nine accused perons came to the chhawar in between his Khalihan and the Khalihan of Halkhori Singh from the village side He has further stated that all the accused were armed with guns and those accompanying the accused were armed with Lathi bhala and Garasa. Further evidence of P. W.10 is that accused Jagmohan dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh fired their guns towards the Khalihan of Halkhori Singh and injured Shanker Sab. He has further stated thai surendra Singh (deceased) son of Kailash Singh and Raghubir Singh were in the Khalihan of Halkhori Singh and when Shanker Sah was injured surendra Singh (deceased) sou oi Kailash Singh fled towards north-west but was surrounded from the front side by accused Jagmohan Dusadh and ra n Swaroop Dusadh and both of them shot at Surender Singh (deceased)as a result of which Surendra Singh (deceased fell down in the field of keshwar Singh and died oa way to varanasi. He has further stated that accused Naresh Dusadh and Radha Dusadh fired their guns Sn his Khalihan which hit him. He has further stated that accused Naresh Dusadh and Radha Dusadh fired their guns Sn his Khalihan which hit him. According to him the remaining accused were firing at randum in all direction P. W.10 has further stated that the accused filed away when villagers came to the P. O. 18. It may be pointed out that PW 10 Rajeshwar Singh has admitted in Para 3 of his deposition that Sec.1 of police had recorded his fardbeyan in. Sasaram Hospital which was read over to him and finding the same correct he affixed his signature (Ext.3/2) thereon. As per his statement in his fardbeyan, first of all Surendra Singh (deceased) son of kailash Singh WHS shot at by accused Jagmohan Dusadh and Ram swaroop Dusadh but as per his evidence in court it was Shanker Sah who was the first man to be shot at by the said two accused. As pet his statement in fardbeyan (Ext.2) Shankar was the last person to be shot at and injured but as per his evidence in court he was the first man to be shot at. As per his statement in the fardbeyan (Ext, 2) Surendra Singh (deceased) was shot at in the nearby Khallhan and he fell down there but as per his evidence in court Surendra Singh deceased) was in the Khalihan of Halkhori Singh and when Shanker Sah was injured he (deceased surendra Singh) fled towards north west but was shot at in the field of keshwar Singh and he fell down there. As per his statement in fardbeyan he and Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh were shot at and injured by accused Umesh Dusadh, Jagrnohan Dusadh and Radha Dusadh but ids evidence in court is to the effect that Naresh Dusadh and Radha Dusadh had fired In his Khalihon due to which he was injured. He is silent about the injury to Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh in his Khallhan. It is apparent that informant Rajeshwar Singh (PW 10) has, in his deposition in court, improved his version. Further more, in Para 10 of his deposition pw 10 has admitted that he has land dispute and litigation with the family of accused Jagrnohan Dusadh for the last 10 to 15 years. This statement of PW 10 goes to show that he is animus to depose against the accused-appellants. Further more, in Para 10 of his deposition pw 10 has admitted that he has land dispute and litigation with the family of accused Jagrnohan Dusadh for the last 10 to 15 years. This statement of PW 10 goes to show that he is animus to depose against the accused-appellants. In view of the above fact the evidence of PW 10 rajeshwar Singh has to be considered with great caution and cannot be safely relied upon unless corroborated in material particulars by some independent and reliable evidence. 19. So far as PW 3 Jaggu Singh is concerned, he has stated that at about 4 to 4.30 p. m. while he was storing Puwal (straw) in his Khallhan he saw 18 to 20 persons, including accused persons coming from village mishripur towards south. According to him the accused persons were armed with gun and others were armed with lathi, bhala and Garasa. He has further stated that those persons came to Chhawar in between the khalihans of Rajeshwar Singh (informant) and Halkhori Singh and accused jagrnohan Dusadh ordered for killing the enemies. He has further stated that accused Jagmohan Dusadh fired in the khalihan of Halkhori Singh as a result of which Shanker Sah was injured. He has further stated that surendra Singh (deceased) soa of Kailash Singh fled from the khalihan of Halkhori Singh but was surrounded by accused Jagmohan Dusadh and ram Swaroop Dusadh in the filed of Keshwar Singh and was shot at by them due to which he fell down there. PW 3 has further stated that in the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh (informant) some of the accused fired which hit Rajeshwar Singh and Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh. He has not named the assailants of Rajeshwar Singh and Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh, PW 3 has further stated that accused persons fled away when the villager and witnesses came there. So according to the pw 3 also Shankar Sah was injured first then Sureudra Singh (deceased)son of Kailash Singh was injured and then Rsjeshwar Singh (informant)and Surendra Singh son of Megha Slogh were injured. The earliest version of the prosecution case is contained in the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of the informant. Like PW 10, PW 3 has also made improvements in the earliest version of the prosecution case. The earliest version of the prosecution case is contained in the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of the informant. Like PW 10, PW 3 has also made improvements in the earliest version of the prosecution case. Apatt from that PW 3 has not been named in the fardbeyan (Ext.2) as an eye-witness to the occurrence. In view of this it is doubtful if PW 3 has actually seen tbs occurrence. Apart from thai PW 5 Kameshwar Singh has stated in his examination in chief itself that since before the occurrence there has been land dispute between the Koiri caste people on the one side and Dussdh caste people on the other side. Since all the witnesses to occurrence including PW 3 jaggu Siagh are Koiri by caste, they have undoubtedly animus to despose against the accused-appellants. In view of the above facts, the evidence of PW 3 does not appear to be safely reliable. 20. Pw 4 Lakshman Singh has stated that on 9-12-1984 at about 4 to 4.30 p. m. while he was in his khalihan, 18 to 20 persons including the accused persons came from the village to the Chhawar in between the khalihans of Rajeshwar Singh and Halkhori Singh. He has further stated that accused persons were armed with guns and others were armed with lathi, bhala and garasa. He has further stated that accused Jagmohan dusadh ordered for killing the enemies and thereafter Jagmohan dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh fired their guns towards khalihan of halkhori Singh as a result of which Shanker Sah was injured. In Para 4 of his deposition PW 4 has specifically stated that Shanker Sah was hit by shot of accused Jagmohan Dusadn, PW 4 has further stated that Surendra singh (deceased) son of Kailash Singh fled towards north west from the khalihan of Halkhori Singh but was surrounded by accused Jagmohan dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh in the filed of Keshwar Singh and shot at by them due to which he fell down there in injured condition. He has further stated that thereafter Jagmohan Dusadh and Ram Swaroop dusadh went towards khalihan of Rajesewar Singh and fired their guns to due to which Rajeshwar Singh and Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh were injured. He has further stated that thereafter Jagmohan Dusadh and Ram Swaroop dusadh went towards khalihan of Rajesewar Singh and fired their guns to due to which Rajeshwar Singh and Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh were injured. In his examination in chief PW 4 has also stated about firing by accused Radha Dusadh, Umesh Dusadh and Jagat Dusadh towards the khalihan of Rejeshwar Singh but has not stated if any one was hit thereby or not. According to his evidence, in his examination in chief all the injured including deceased Surendra Singh of Kailash. Singh were hit by the firing of accused Jagmohan Dusadh end Ram Swaroop Dasadh and non else. But his evidence in his cross-examination is to the effect that Rajeshwar Singh and Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh were injured by the firing of accused Jagat Dusads, Radha Dusadh and Umesh dusadh. As Is apparent PW 4 has contradicted himself. He has further contradicted himself by stating in Para 4 of his deposition that he cannot say as to whose shot had hit Rajeshwar Singh PW 4 has further stated that accused persons fled away when there was hulla from village side. He does not say that the accused persons fled away when villagers came as has been stated by PW 3 Jaggu Singh and PW 10 Rajeshwar Singh. 21. Apatt from what has been pointed out above it may be mentioned that PW 4 Ms not been flamed in the fardbayan (Ext.20} as an eyewitness to the occurrence. In view of this it is doubtful If he had actually seen the occurrence. Further more, an pointed out earlier, PW 5 in his examination in chief has admitted that since before the occurrence there has been land dispute between Koiri caste people on one side and Dusadh caste people on the other side, PW 4 being of Koiri caste he has undoubtedly animus to depose against the accused-appellate. Under the circumstances even his evidence does not appear to be safely reliable. 22. Pw 5 Kameshwar Singh on of Ram Pati Singh has stated that on 9-12-1984 at about 4 to 4 30 p. m. while he was in his khalihan, 18 to 20 persons including accused came from the village side to the Chhawar in between the khalihans of Rajeshwar Singh and Halkhori Singh. 22. Pw 5 Kameshwar Singh on of Ram Pati Singh has stated that on 9-12-1984 at about 4 to 4 30 p. m. while he was in his khalihan, 18 to 20 persons including accused came from the village side to the Chhawar in between the khalihans of Rajeshwar Singh and Halkhori Singh. He has further stated that accused persons were armed with guns and others were armed with lathi, bhala and Garasa. He has further stated that accused jagmohan Dusadh ordered for killing the enimes and thereafter accused jagmohan Dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh fired their guns towards the khalihan of Halkhori Singh which hit Shanker Sah. He has further stated that Surendra Singh (deceased) son of Kailash Singh fled from the khalihan of Halkhori Singh towards north but accused Jagmohan Dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh surrounded him in the field of Keshwar Singh and shot at him as a result of which he was injured and fell down in the field of Ram Prasad Singh. He has further stated that thereafter Jagmohan dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh came towards the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh and fired their guns According to him accused Jagat dusadh, Radha Dusadh, Umesh Dusadh, Naresh Dusadh, Sitaram Dusadh sheo Bhajan Dusadh and Dasrath Dusadh also fired. He has farther stated that in the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh, Rajeshwar Singh and surendra Singh son of Megha Singh were injured but he does not say as to whose shot at to hit Rajeshwar Singh and Surendra Singh son of Megha singh. PW 5 has further stated that accused flet away towards the village when there was hulla. He does not say that the accused persons fled away when the villagers came. 23. As will appear, he has supported the improvements made in the original prosecution version by PWs 3, 4 and 10 and has also made further improvement by stating that though deceased Surendra Singh son of kailash Singh was actually shot at in the field on Keshwar Singh but while fleeing he fell down in the field of Ram Prasad Singh He has also made further improvement In prosecution version by sating that all the accused persons had fired their atuns Apart from what has been pointed out above. It may be mentioned that PW 5 has not been named In the fardbeyan (Ext.2) as a eye-witness to the occurrence. It may be mentioned that PW 5 has not been named In the fardbeyan (Ext.2) as a eye-witness to the occurrence. In view of this it is doubtful if he had actually seen the occurrence. In para six of his deposition he has admitted that there has been litigation regarding land between his father and accused Jagmohan Dusadh for the last 20 years. This admission of PW 5 goes to show that he has animus to depose agninst the accused appellants. In view of the above facts it would not be safe to rely on the evidence of PW 5. 24. Pw 8 Raghubir Singh is the son of Halkhori Singh. His evidence is to the effect that at about 4.30 p, m. while he was in his khalihan, 18 to 20 persons including the accused came to the Chhawar in between his khalihan and that of the khalihan ofrajeshwar Singh (informant ). He has further stated that accused persons were armed with gum and others were armed with lathi, bhala and Garasa PW 8 has further stated that accused Jagmohan Dusadh ordered for killing the enemies and thereafter accused Jagmohan Dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh fired their guns towards his (PW 8) khalihan which hit Shanker Sah who was cutting Kutti there, He has further stated that Surendra Singh (deceased)son of Kailash Singh fled from his (PW 8) khahhan but accused Jagmohan dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh surrounded him In the field of Keshwar singh from front side and tired their guns at him which bit him. He has also stated that Surendra Singh (deceased) son of Kailash Singh fled in the injured condition but fell down in the field of Ram Prasad Singh. Further evidence of PW 8 is that after shooting Surendra Singh (deceased)son of Kailish Singh, accused Jagmohan Dusadh and Ram Swaroop dusadh went towards the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh and first of all radha Dusadh, Jagat Dusadh and Umesh Dusadh fired their guns in the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh and thereafter accused Jagmohan Dusadh and ram Swaroop Dusadh fired their guns In the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh were Rajeshwar Singh and Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh wera injured. He has contradicted himself by stating in his cross-examination (Para 4) that Rajeshwer Singh and Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh had already been Injured prior to the firing of Jagmohan Dusadh and Ram swaroop Dusadh In the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh. He has further stated that the accused fled away when there was hulla from village side. 25. As is apparent P. W.8 has also made improvement in the original version of the prosecution case Farther more, P W.8 has not been named in the fardbeyan (Ext 2) as an eye-witness to the occurrence. In view of this it is doubtful if he had actually seen the occurrence. It has already been point oat earlier that P W.5 Kameshwar Singh has admitted in his exarninatlon-in-chief that since before the occurrence there has been land dispute between the Koiri caste people on one side and Dusadh caste people on the other side. P. W.8 being a member of the Koiri caste has undoubtedly animus to depose against the accused-appellants. In view of these facts it would not bs safe to rely on the evidence of P. W, 8. 26. P. W.9 Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh is one of the injured and her. ce his presence at the time of occurrence is beyond doubt. He has stated that at about 4.30 P. M. while he was in the khalihan of rajeshwar Singh, his Fufera brother, 18 to 20 persons including the accused came to the Chhawar in between the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh and Halkhori Singh and surrounded the khalihans from southern side. He has further stated that accused persons were armed with guns and others accompanying them were armed with lathi, bhala and Garasa. Accused jagmohan Dusadh ordered for killing the enemies and there after Jagmohan dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh fired their guns towards the khalihan of Halkhorl Singh as a result of which Shanker Shah was injured. He has further stated that Surendra Singh (deceased) son of Kailash Singh fled from the khalihan of Halkhori Singh but accused Jagmohan Dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh surrounded him in the field of Keshwar SSngh and injured him by firing at him. He has further stated that Surendra Singh (deceased) son of Kailash Singh fled from the khalihan of Halkhori Singh but accused Jagmohan Dusadh and Ram Swaroop Dusadh surrounded him in the field of Keshwar SSngh and injured him by firing at him. He has further stated that accused radha Dusadh, Umesh Dusadh, Jagat Dusadh fired their guns towards the khalihan of Rajesbwar Singh and the shot by Umesh Dusadh hit his both legs and the shot by Radha Dusadh hit his both the legs as well abdomen. He has further stated that on being so injured he fell down in the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh and become unconscious which he regained after fire minutes and so he could not see anything after he fell down. He does not say about the injury to Rajeshwar Singh in his khalihan. 27. It may be pointed out that P. W.9 has admitted in para 5 of his deposition that he was examined by the police 20 to 22 days after the occurrence. The Investigating Officer (P. W.15) had also stated in para 11 of deposition that he examined P. W.9 on 31-12-1984. In para 5 of his deposition P W.9 has further admitted that he was in hospital at varanasi for one week. As is apparent there was much delay in his examination by the police and there is no explanation for this delay. Apart from that P. W.9 being the maternal brother of the informant, is also an interested witness. In view of these facts it would not be safe to rely on his evidence unless the same is corroborated material particulars by some independent and reliable evidence. 28. P. W.11 Anandi Singh is the brother of informant Rajeshwar singh. He claims to be present at the P. O. at the time of occurrence. He has stated that at about 4.30 p. m. while he was in his khalihan along with his father, brother Rajeshwar Singh (informant), Umdesh Singh and maternal brother Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh and was storing thrashed paddy, 18 to 20 persons including accused persons came to the chhawar in between his khalihan and that of the khalihan of Halkhori singh He has further stated that accused persons were armed with guns and others accompanying them were armed with lathi, bhala and Garasa. According to P. W.11 accused Jagmohan Dusadh ordered for killing the ememies and on being so ordered the persons other than the accused began to surround his khalihan and that of the khalihan of Halkhori Singh and the accused persons began to fire their guns towards the persons present his khalihan and that of the khalihan of Halkhori Singh He has further stated that he, his father and brother Umesh Singh fled towards east and began to raise hulla hearing which the villagers and the people in neighbourhood assembled and the accused fled towards the village. He has further stated that after retreat of the accused persons he went to the khalihan and found his brother Rajeshwar Singh and maternal brother surendra Singh son of Megha Singh lying there in Injured condition. He has further stated that in the khalihan of Halkhori Singh he saw Shanker sha lying in the injured condition. He has further stated that he saw surendra Singh (deceased) son of Kailash Singh lying in injured condition in the field of Ram Prasad Singh. 29. It may be pointed out that it, is not the prosecution case that the accused or their companions had surrounded the khalihan of any body but P. W.11 has stated that the persons accompanying the accused began to surround his khalihan and that of Halkhori Singh. So he has introduced a new improvement in the prosecution version. It is not the prosecution case that P. W.11 or his father or his brother Umesh Singh had fled towards east and had raised hulla hearing which the villagers and the people In the neighbourhood had assembled but P. W.11 has stated to the said effect. No other witness including Rajeshwar Singh (P. W.10) who, as per their claim, were in that very khalihan in which P. W.11 Anandi singh was, has stated about fleeing away of P. W.11 Anandi Singh, umesh Singh and their father towards east and raising of hulla by them 30. As admitted by P. W.11 in para 7 of his deposition, he himself had seen Injuries being caused to any of the injured. Ir* para 8 of his deposition he has admitted that he did not see any body firing his gun as he fled away on hearing the sound of firing. If so Chen his statement in his examination-in-chief that the accused persons began firing stands falsified. Ir* para 8 of his deposition he has admitted that he did not see any body firing his gun as he fled away on hearing the sound of firing. If so Chen his statement in his examination-in-chief that the accused persons began firing stands falsified. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that in his khalihan he saw Surendra Singh, his memera brother, lying injured but in his cross-examination (Para 8) he has stated that he did not see Surendra Singh, his memera brother, lying injured in his khalihan. He has also admitted in para 9 of his deposition that he had not found blood mark in his khalihan when they went there after departure of the accused. The statement of P. W.11 that he did not find his maternal brother Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh lying in injured condition in his khalihan and also did not find blood fallen there creates doubt about the prosecution case that Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh and Rajeshwar Singh (informant)had been injured in the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh, the brother of p. W.11. His statement that he did not find blood fallen in his khalihan also falsifies P. Ws.3, 4, 8 and 10 who have stated that blood had fallen in the khalihan of Rajeshwar Singh P. W.11 has further stated that he had been to the khalihan of Halkhori Singh but he did not find blood fallen there on the ground. He has stated in para 9 of his deposition that he had seen the clothes of the injured soaked with blood. If so, then some blood was expected in the khalihans of Halkhori Singh and Rajeshwar singh but the I. O. (P. W.15) has stated in para 10 of his deposition that he did not find any trampling mark or blood mark in any of the khalihans. In view of this the prosecution case that the occurrence took place in the khalihans of the informant Rajeshwar Singh and Halkhori Singh becomes doubtful. 31. As will appear from the above discussion of the evidence of the witnesses who have claimed themselves to be eye-witness to the occurrence their evidence is practically parrot like with slight variation. It is also apparent that they have made much improvements and variation in the prosecution case as contained in the fardbeyan (Ext.2) which is the earliest version of the prosecution case. It is also apparent that they have made much improvements and variation in the prosecution case as contained in the fardbeyan (Ext.2) which is the earliest version of the prosecution case. In the fardbeyan (Ext.2) five persons have been named as witnesses to the occurrence but out of them umesh Singh, the brother of the informant and Shanker Shah, one of the injured, have not been examined by the prosecution and there is no explanation for not examining them. I have already pointed out that though three witnesses named in the fardbeyan have been examined but their evidence does not inspire confidence and does not appear to be safely reliable. 32. While discussing the evidence of P. W.11 Anandi Singh I have already pointed out that he has improved the prosecution version by stating that persons accompanying the accused had begun to surround his khalihan and that of the khalihan of Halkhori Singh. Such improvement In the prosecution version has also been made by P. W.3 who In para 3 of his deposition has stated that accused had surrounded the khalihan of halkhori Singh from northern, easten and southern side. Similarly P. W.9 Surendra Singh son of Megha Singh has stated In para 2 of his deposition that khalihan had been surrounded from southern side. But P. W.8 in para 4 of his deposition has stated that the accused had not surrounded his khalihan. These inconsistent and contradictory statements of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses actually create doubt not only about the place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution but also about the manner of occurrence as alleged and this doubt is further strengthened by the fact that the Investigating Officer had not found any trampling OP blood mark In any of the khalihans. As pointed out earlier, the witnesses on the point of occurrence have stated about firing by several accused and one of the witnesses, namely, P. W.5 Kameshwar singh has stated that all she accused persons had fired their guns. Strangly enough the Investigating Officer did not find even a single empty cartridge in any of the khalihans. Rather he found two empty cariridges and two wads in the field of Keshwar Singh which is not the place of occurrence according to the earliest prosecution version as contained in the fradbeyan (Ext.2) of the informant. Strangly enough the Investigating Officer did not find even a single empty cartridge in any of the khalihans. Rather he found two empty cariridges and two wads in the field of Keshwar Singh which is not the place of occurrence according to the earliest prosecution version as contained in the fradbeyan (Ext.2) of the informant. This aspect of the matter also creates doubt not only about the place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution but also about the manner of occurrence as alleged. The earliest version of the prosecution case as contained in the fradbeyan (Ext.2) of the informant does not say that the occurrence had taken place in the field of Keshwar Singh or its the field of Ram Prasad Singh rather it is the specific case of the prosecution in the fradbeyan (Ext.2) that even deceased Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh on being shot at had fell down in the nerrby khalihan. The investigating Officer (P. W.15) had found trail of blood from the filed of Keshwar Singh to the field of Ram prasad Singh which is to the west thereof. The I. O. had also found copious blood in the field of Ram Prasad Singh for which there is no explanation in the earliest version of the prosecution case as contained in the fradbeyan (Ext, 2 ). Even P. W.10 Rajeshwar Singh (informant)P. W.3 Jaggu Singh, P. W.4 Lakshman Singh, and P. W.9 Surendra singh son of Megha Singh have not stated that any of the injured including deceased Surendra Singh son of Kailash Singh had fallen in the field of Ram Pd. Singh. Of course, the prosecution has subsequently tried to cover up this lacuna by the evidence of P. W.5 and P. W.8 who have stated that deceased Sutendra Singh son of Kailash Singh on being injured had fallen down in the field of Ram Prasad Singh. I have already pointed out earlier that neither P. W.5 Kaugsnwar Singh nor P. W.8 Raghubir singh has been named in the fradbeyan (Ext.2) as an eye-witness to the occurrence and hence their evidence and the improvements made by them to the aforesaid effect cae hardly be relied upon. I have already pointed out earlier that neither P. W.5 Kaugsnwar Singh nor P. W.8 Raghubir singh has been named in the fradbeyan (Ext.2) as an eye-witness to the occurrence and hence their evidence and the improvements made by them to the aforesaid effect cae hardly be relied upon. So the finding of copious blood by the Investigating Officer in the field of Ram Prasad singh and trail of blood from the field of Keshwar Singh to the field of ram Prasad Singh create doubt about the manner of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. 33. The occurrence took place on 9-12-1984. In para 7 of his deposition the I. O. (P. W.15) had admitted that accused Sitaram Dusadh was also admitted in Sasaram hospital on 9-22-1984 and he found bandage over the head and eyes of Sitaram Dusadh. He has further stated that he prepared injury report and handed over the same to the doctor and also recorded his fradbeyan in the hospital itself on the basis of which counter case was registered. The doctor (P. W.13) who had examined the injured persons of the prosecution side has admitted in his cross-examination that on 9-12-1984 at 5 P. M he had examined accused sitaram Dusadh on being referred to by the police and had found lacerated wound on the left leteral side of forehead 1/2" X 1/2" which had been caused by hasd blunt substance, ma* be by gun shot. He (P. W.13) has further stated that after examining Sitaram Dusadh he referred him to dr. N. Roy, Eye Surgeon for treatment and opinion. The injury report prepared by the doctor with regard to the injury on the person of accused sitaram Dusadh is Ext. A. 34. The defence has examinaed doctor Rama Shanker Tiwary and doctor Devendra Nath Singh as D. Ws.1 and 2 respectively. They have doposed to the effect that on 27-4-1985 a medical board had been constituted by order of Civil Surgeon to examine Sitaram Dusadh in connection with Sitaram (M) P. S. case No.574/84 and they were members of the board along with doctor L. B- Jaiswal who is now dead. Dr. Devendra nath Sinha has also stated that the he was Eye Surgeon in Sasaram hospital. Dr. Devendra nath Sinha has also stated that the he was Eye Surgeon in Sasaram hospital. Both D. Ws.1 and 2 have stated that the Board examined Sitaram Dusadh and found multipule sear marks 1/4" in diameter, some oval aad some round in shaps over the left temporal, left partial, left maxillary, left forehead and left nasal regions. According to them s me hard noduls about 1/4" wers also palpable in the same area. They have also stated that the left eye ball of Sitaram Dusadh was reddisn with complete loss of vision, D. W.1 has stated that the injury was grievous in nature. D. Ws.1 and 2 have proved their signatures Exts. C and C/1 over the report of medical board but unfortunately the report has not been proved and marked exhibit though the same is attached with the record. 35. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the prosecution version of the occurrence does not explain the grievous injury caused to accused Sitaram Dusadh in the same occurrence. It was also contended that the prosecution witnesses to the occurrence (P. Ws.3, 4.5, 8, 9, 10 and 11) have denied any injury on the person of accused Sitaram Dusadh on the day of occurrence. It was further pointed out that non-explanation of grievous injury sustained by accused Sitaram Dusadh at the time of occurrence goes to show that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version and the witnesses who havo denied the presence of injuries on the person of the said accused are lying on the most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable and the defence version which explains the injuries on the person of accused sitaram Dusadh is rendered probable so as to throw out the prosecution case. It was also contended that the failure on the part of the prosecution to explain the injury on the persod of accused Sitaram Dusadh assumes much greater importance as the evidence consists of interested and enemical witnesses. In support of the above contentions reliance was place on Laxmi Singh and others V/s. The State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 . 36. In support of the above contentions reliance was place on Laxmi Singh and others V/s. The State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 . 36. In this connection the learned counsel for the State referred to (Hare Krishna Singh and others V/s. The State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 863 : 1988 BLJ 599 and contended that the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injury sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise In each and every case and it is not invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the enjury sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. In the said case their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that if the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the court in proof of the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the question of obligation of the prosecution to explain the injury sustained by the accused will not arise. The learned counsel for the State has also referred to AIR 1979 SC 1010 : AIR 1977 SC 2252 . AIR 1974 SC 21 : AIR 1974 SC 1550 and AIR 1971 SC 2223 which were referred to by their Lordships of the Supreme Coutt while deciding the case reported in AIR 1988 SC 863 mentioned above. It may be pointed out that in the case before this Court the witnesses examined by the prosecution on the point of occurrence are interested and have also animus to depose against the accused-appellants. It has also been pointed out earlier that their evidence is not safely reliable for the reasons as mentioned above. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable deubts. Under the circumstances the injury on the person of the accused Sitaram Dusadh being grievous it is incumbent on the prosecution to explain the same. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable deubts. Under the circumstances the injury on the person of the accused Sitaram Dusadh being grievous it is incumbent on the prosecution to explain the same. In AIR 1976 SC 2263 it has been pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not effect the prosecution case and this principle would obviously apply in cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear or cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit worthy that it far out weighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injury. As pointed out above in the case before this Court the injury is not minor or superficial and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not so consistent and creditworthy as to out weigh the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injury on the person of accused Sitaram Dusadh. 37. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the State that no eye specialist had examined accused Sitaram Dusadh and the medical Board did not consist of an eye specialist In this connection it was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that d. W.2 in para 2 of his deposition has specifically stated that he was an eye Surgeon at that time in Sasaram Hospital. In view of this there appears no substance in the above contention of the learned counsel for the State. It was further contended on behalf of the State that the report of the Medical Board has not been proved and exhibited and hence the oral evidence of D. Ws.1 and 2 to the effect that there was complete loss of vision in the left eye ball of accused Sitaram Dusadh cannot be accepted. It has already been pointed out earlier that D. Ws.1 and 2 have proved up their signatures (Ext. C and C/1) over the report of the medical Board but unfortunately the report itself has not been proved but the same is on record. It has already been pointed out earlier that D. Ws.1 and 2 have proved up their signatures (Ext. C and C/1) over the report of the medical Board but unfortunately the report itself has not been proved but the same is on record. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the State that the occurrence took place on 9-12-1984 but the medical Board examined accused Sitaram Dusadh on 27-4-1985 i e. more than four and half months after the occurrence and under the circumstances it cannot be said that the injuries found by the Medical Board had been caused in the occurrence in question. I have already pointed out earlier that the Investigation Officer (P. W, 15) found accused Sitaram dusadh admitted in Sasaram hospital on the day of occurrence and he had even recorded his fardbeyan in the hospital itself on the basis of which the counter case was registered. It has already been pointed out earlier that the Investigation Officer had found bandage over both the eyes and head of the said accused and had prepared injury report regarding the same and had handed over the same to the doctor, P. W.13 dr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh has specifically stated that he had examined accused Sitaram Dusadh on 9-12-1984 at 5 P. M. and had found one lacerated wound on left lateral side of forehead 1/2" x 1/2" and had referred him to Dr. N. P. Ray, Eye Surgeon, for treatment and opinion. In view of the evidence of the said doctor (P. W.13) and the I. O. (P. W.15) to the aforesaid effect there remains no doubt that there was some injury in the eye of accused Sitaram Dusadh which on examination by the Medical Board on 27-4-1985 was found to be grievous as the said accused had lost his vision of his left eye. It is true that D, W.1 Dr. Rama Shanker Tiwary has stated that at the time of examination the injury had completely healed up but the fact that the injury had been caused on the day of occurrence is apparent from the evidence of P. W.13 dr. Chandra Shekhar Pd. Singh and the I. O. (P. W.15), That being the position there appears no force in the above contention of the learned counsel for the State. 38. Chandra Shekhar Pd. Singh and the I. O. (P. W.15), That being the position there appears no force in the above contention of the learned counsel for the State. 38. It was contended by the learned counsel for the State that X-ray report regarding the affected eye has not been brought on record and there Is no scientific date for the opinion of D. Ws.1 and 2 to the aforesaid effect. As it appears from the evidence of the I. O (P. W.15)the accused Sitaram Dusadh had been admitted in hospital on 9-12-1984 but the I. O. has stated in para 9 of his deposition that even on 3-1-1985 he had been to Sasaram hospital and had found accused Sitaram Dusadh still admitted there. It is true that no X-ray report or any other scientific data has been brought by the defence bat in view of the facts which had come on record and which have been mentioned above there remains no doubt that there was injury in the eye of accused Sitaram Ousadh for the treatment of which he remained hospitalised sad the Medical Board on examination found that he had lost vision of left eye. 39. It was list to contended on behalf of the State that D. W.1 in his evidence in court has stated that he could not say if at the time of examination of the eye of accused Sitaram Dusadh there was natural eye ball or artificial eye ball and under the circumstances the opinion of d. Ws 1 and 2 regarding injuries is not fit to be relied upon. In this connection it was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that D. W.2 in para 3 of his deposition has specifically stated that he did not find any foreign substance in the left eye (injured eye) of accused Sitaram Dusadh and in view of this there is no question of there being artificial eye ball at the time of examination by the Medical Board. 40. From my above discussion, it is apparent that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not prove the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. 40. From my above discussion, it is apparent that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not prove the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. It is also apparent that the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the point of occurrence is of interested witnesses who have animus to depose against the accused-appellants and most of whom are, admittedly, on litigating term with the accused appellants from before the occurrence. It is also apparent that several improvements have been made in the prosecution version by the witnesses in their evidence in court and they have also failed to explain the injuries on the person of accused Sitaram dusadh which has made their evidence untrustworthy. Under the circumstances it must be held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not safely reliable and does not prove beyond ail reasonable doubts the charges for which the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced. Under the circumstances the accused-appellants are entitled to acquittal. 41. In the result both the appeals are hereby allowed. The conviction and sentences passed agaiast the accused-appellants are hereby set aside and they are acquitted. The accused-appellants in custody to be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeals allowed.